Haïoun, Corinne

PURPOSE Although most patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) can expect an indolent course, progressive lymphoma remains the primary cause of death during the first decade after diagnosis. Progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) of starting first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy defines a high-risk population with poor survival, but better risk stratification at diagnosis is needed. METHODS The FLIPI24 model was developed and internally validated to predict 24-month event rates using individual data from 4,485 patients treated with 1L immunochemotherapy from 10 observational cohorts of FL. Overall and cause-specific survival was further evaluated in FLIPI24 risk groups. External validation in the 1L immunochemotherapy setting was performed using the prospective observational Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort (N = 565) and three randomized phase III trials (N = 3,192); extension to all patients with FL (any 1L therapy) was performed in the LEO cohort (N = 1,445) and its Molecular Epidemiology Resource subcohort (N = 1,074). RESULTS The FLIPI24 model uses age and four blood-based variables (hemoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, beta-2 microglobulin, and WBC count). FLIPI24 showed consistent performance across validation and extension data sets, which was superior to existing prognostic tools. Across the four external immunochemotherapy validation data sets, patients with high-risk FLIPI24 (23%-32% of patients) had significantly higher 24-month event rates (22%-35%) and inferior 5-year overall survival (77%-83%) compared with patients with low-risk FLIPI24 (29%-31% of patients, 24-month event rates: 10%-12%; 5-year OS: 96%-97%). Results were consistent when evaluating lymphoma-related death and when extended to all patients with FL. CONCLUSION The FLIPI24 model robustly stratifies, at diagnosis, patients with FL at increased risk of lymphoma-related death versus patients with very low lymphoma-related mortality during the first decade after diagnosis. FLIPI24 can be used to enrich future clinical trial designs in newly diagnosed FL.

Abstract Disease progression after frontline therapy for Diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a clinically significant event. Patients who experience early progression or have refractory disease have especially poor outcomes. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools are needed for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies and prognostication in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Model building was performed in patients from the Surrogate endpoints in aggressive lymphoma (SEAL) consortium with disease progression after frontline immunochemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) measured from date of progression. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish National Lymphoma Register (LYFO) cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time‐dependent concordance indices (c‐statistic) and calibration with metrics evaluated at 2 years from progression. Note, 1234 of 5112 patients treated with frontline immunochemotherapy in the SEAL consortium developed progressive disease. Time to progression on immunochemotherapy and age at progression were strongly associated with post‐progression OS (both p < 0.001). A prognostic model was developed incorporating spline fit for both variables. The model had good concordance in the discovery (0.67) and validation sets (LYFO c = 0.64, MER c = 0.68) with generally good calibration. Time to progression on frontline therapy is strongly associated with post‐progression OS in DLBCL. We developed and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the R/R setting. The useful prediction of expected outcomes in R/R DLBCL and can inform treatment decisions such as considerations for CAR‐T therapy as well as trial designs. The model is available in smartphone‐based point of care applications.

8569 Introduction: Relapsed or refractory MCL patients demonstrated a promising overall response rate (ORR) of 53% with a median duration of response (DR) of 13.7 months to single-agent lenalidomide when analyzed as a subset in a recent a phase II study (NHL-002). A supporting international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL. In this report, we analyze the current results from the MCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL and measurable disease 2 cm after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg of lenalidomide orally once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle. Patients continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: Fifty-four MCL patients were enrolled and were evaluable for response assessment. Median age was 69 years (33–82) and 40 patients (74%) were male. Median time from diagnosis was 3.2 years (0.4–10.4), patients had received a median of 3 prior treatments (1–8), 17 of the patients (32%) had received prior bortezomib therapy (MCL-bortezomib), and 14 (26%) had received a prior stem cell transplant (MCL-stem cell). Response rates are shown in the Table. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (43%), thrombocytopenia (22%) and anemia (11%). Conclusions: This is the second study to demonstrate that lenalidomide oral monotherapy is effective in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, with manageable side effects. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

e19504 Background: Patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are not cured with R-CHOP or high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue have a dismal prognosis. A recent phase II trial (NHL-002) of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) demonstrated a 19% overall response rate (ORR) with a 7-month median duration of response (DR) in the subset of patients with DLBCL. A supporting international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL that had received at least one prior treatment and had measurable disease. Herein, we report the data from the DLBCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients received 25 mg oral lenalidomide once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle and continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: One hundred-three DLBCL patients were enrolled and were evaluable for response assessment. The median age was 66 years (21–87) and 70 patients (68%) were male. Median time from diagnosis was 2 years (0.4–18.6), patients had received a median of 3 prior treatment regimens (1–10) and 46 of the patients (45%) had received a prior stem cell transplant (DLBCL-stem cell). Response rates are shown in the Table . Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in more than 5% of patients were neutropenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (18%), asthenia (9%), anemia (8%), leucopenia (7%), back pain (6%) and dyspnea (6%). Conclusions: This international study demonstrates that lenalidomide is active in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL and has manageable side effects. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common of the non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). Patients with DLBCL who are not cured by treatment with R-CHOP chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue have a poor prognosis. These patients reflect a clear unmet need in the treatment of DLBCL. A previous sub-analysis of a phase II trial (NHL-002) of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, demonstrated a 19% overall response rate (ORR) with a 7-month median duration of response (DR). A confirmatory international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL that had received at least one prior treatment and had measurable disease. Herein, we report the data from the DLBCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients received 25 mg oral lenalidomide once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle and continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: This report focuses on the 73 DLBCL patients that were enrolled and evaluable for response assessment. The median age was 67 (21–87) years and 49 (67%) patients were male. Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide treatment was 2 (0–18.6) years, and patients had received a median of 3 (1–6) prior treatment regimens. The ORR to lenalidomide was 29% (21/73), with 4% complete response (3/73) and 25% partial response (18/73). Eleven patients (15%) had stable disease. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32%), thrombocytopenia (15%), asthenia (8%) and anemia (7%). Conclusion: These results of this international study confirm that lenalidomide is active in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL with manageable side effects.

Abstract Introduction: Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive B-cell lymphoma that if not cured with aggressive chemoimmunotherapy and stem cell transplant is usually fatal. The intravenous proteasome inhibitor bortezomib produces an overall response rate (ORR) of 33% in patients with relapsed MCL (J Clin Oncol2006;24(30):4867–74). Unfortunately, most patients eventually relapse and new agents are needed for this disease. Two recently conducted phase II trials (NHL-002 and NHL-003) tested single-agent lenalidomide for patients with relapsed MCL. Fifty-four patients with MCL were enrolled into the two studies; 26% (14/54) had received prior bortezomib and they are the subject of this report. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL and measurable disease 2 cm after at least one prior treatment regimen including prior bortezomib were eligible. Patients received 25 mg of lenalidomide orally once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle. Therapy was continued as tolerated or until disease progression. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: The 14 patients in this study were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 (2–6) prior treatments (including bortezomib) and 50% were bortezomib-refractory. Median age was 66 (45–84) years and 6 (43%) patients were female. Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide treatment was 3.3 (0.7–7.6) years. The ORR with lenalidomide was 57% (8/14), including 21% (3/14) complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR and 36% (5/14) partial responses. One (7%) patient had stable disease. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (43%), anemia (21%), fatigue (21%), and leukopenia (21%). Neutropenic fever occurred in 7% of patients. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that lenalidomide oral monotherapy is very effective with manageable side effects in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL who had received prior treatment with bortezomib.

Abstract Introduction: Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) is a type of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that typically responds to initial chemo-immunotherapy, but with a relatively short duration of response (DR) and progression-free survival (PFS) when treated with conventional chemotherapy agents. Although the overall survival (OS) of MCL has improved, most patients are not cured and new agents are needed. A sub-analysis of a recent phase II trial (NHL-002) investigating the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, demonstrated a promising overall response rate (ORR) of 53% with a median DR of 11.9 months. A confirmatory international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL that had received at least one prior treatment and had measurable disease. In this report, we analyze the current results from the MCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL and measurable disease ≥2 cm after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg of lenalidomide orally once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle. Patients continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: This report focuses on the 39 MCL patients that were enrolled and evaluable for response assessment. Median age was 66 (33–82) years and 29 (74%) patients were male. Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide treatment was 3.4 (0.4–9) years. Patients had received a median of 3 (1–8) prior treatments, and 23% (9/39) of patients had received prior bortezomib treatment. The ORR with lenalidomide was 41% (16/39), including 13% (5/39) complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR, and 28% (11/39) partial responses. Ten (26%) patients had stable disease. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (51%) and thrombocytopenia (25%), anemia (13%), fatigue (10%) and febrile neutropenia (10%). Conclusion: These results confirm that lenalidomide oral monotherapy is effective in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, with manageable side effects.

Abstract Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients newly diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Three scoring systems incorporating simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the International Prognostic Index (IPI), revised IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We evaluated 2124 DLBCL patients treated from 1998 to 2009 with frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; or variant) across 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials to determine which scoring system best discriminates overall survival (OS). Median age was 63 years, and 56% of patients were male. Five-year OS estimates ranged from 54% to 88%, from 61% to 93%, and from 49% to 92% using the IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI, respectively. The NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest- and lowest-risk groups and best discriminated OS (concordance index = 0.632 vs 0.626 [IPI] vs 0.590 [R-IPI]). For each given IPI risk category, NCCN-IPI risk categories were significantly associated with OS (P ≤ .01); the reverse was not true, and the IPI did not provide additional significant prognostic information within all NCCN-IPI risk categories. Collectively, the NCCN-IPI outperformed the IPI and R-IPI. Patients with low-risk NCCN-IPI had favorable survival outcomes with little room for further improvement. In the rituximab era, none of the clinical risk scores identified a patient subgroup with long-term survival clearly &lt;50%. Integrating molecular features of the tumor and microenvironment into the NCCN-IPI or IPI might better characterize a high-risk group for which novel treatment approaches are most needed.

7544 Background: Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients (pts) newly diagnosed with aggressive BCL. Three scoring systems based on simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the international prognostic index (IPI), revised-IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We studied BCL pts treated with R-CHOP to determine which scoring systems best identifies subgroups with poor outcomes that might benefit from new approaches. Methods: Individual pt data from 7 multicenter trials (1998-2009) of pts with BCL (86% DLBCL) treated front-line with R-CHOP (or variant) were analyzed to determine whether IPI, R-IPI, or NCCN-IPI best discriminated overall survival (OS). The concordance index (c-index) from a proportional hazards model, stratifying on trial and induction therapy, quantified predictive accuracy of each scoring system. Results: 2561 pts (median age 63 yrs, 56% male) were classified into IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI risk groups (Table). With a median follow-up of 5 yrs, NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest and lowest risk groups at 1, 3, and 5 yrs, and best discriminated OS (c-index = 0.631, Table). Conclusions: In an independent and large cohort of pts, NCCN-IPI performs best in risk-stratifying pts with aggressive BCL, readily distinguishing pts at high and low risk for treatment failure using clinical parameters (5-yr OS between 48 and 92%). Improvement over the simpler IPI appears incremental, and IPI may remain a valuable alternative. Work integrating molecular features of the tumor into the (NCCN-) IPI is in progress to define high risk groups where targeted novel approaches are needed most. [Table: see text]

7520 Background: We report results of a phase 2, open-label study of durvalumab (durva) in combination with R-CHOP or R2-CHOP (R-CHOP + lenalidomide) in previously untreated, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: Subjects (≥18 y; ECOG 0–2) with previously untreated, high/high-intermediate risk DLBCL (IPI ≥3/NCCN-IPI ≥4) were stratified to durva + R-CHOP (Arm A, GCB DLBCL) or R2-CHOP for 6–8 cycles (Arm B, ABC DLBCL) based on cell of origin identified by gene expression followed by durva consolidation up to month 12 from start of induction. After FDA placed clinical holds on trials including combination therapy with checkpoint inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents, the study was revised to include both ABC and GCB in Arm A (durva + R-CHOP). The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CRR) at end of induction; secondary endpoints were rate of subjects continuing to consolidation, safety, and response in biological. Results: A total of 46 subjects were treated (safety; A/B, n=43/3); median age, 62/66 y; male, 61%/67%; ECOG 2, 19%/33%; Ann Arbor stage IV, 79%/33%; bulky disease: 49%/67%; double/triple-hit lymphoma, 30%/33%. As of Aug 2, 2018, 30/3 (A/B) had completed induction therapy, and 19 subjects (A) were ongoing. CRR (95% confidence interval) at end of induction was (A) 54% (37%-71%) and (B) 67% (9%-99%); 68%/67% (A/B) continued to consolidation therapy and were progression free at month 12. Safety profile was as expected for the components of the combination regimen with no new safety signal identified. Frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; ≥25%; A+B) included fatigue (61%), neutropenia (52%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (50%), nausea (46%), diarrhea (28%); constipation, decreased appetite, insomnia, pyrexia (24% each); and alopecia, dizziness, dyspnea, headache, stomatitis (22% each). Grade 3/4 TEAEs occurred in 84%/100% of subjects (A/B), and 3 subjects (2/1) died with no death related to study treatment. Follow-up for efficacy and safety is ongoing. Conclusions: Durva + R-CHOP combination therapy is safe and demonstrates encouraging response rates in subjects with high-risk DLBCL including double-hit lymphoma. Clinical trial information: NCT03003520.